Diamond inheritance pattern and interfaces

[romainfrancois]

Follow up to #9 with perhaps a different spin, and additional context here https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/2714#discussion_r224381298

When doing R6 promotion of class hierarchies like these: https://arrow.apache.org/docs/cpp/classarrow_1_1io_1_1_random_access_file.html

a concept of interfaces à la Java would be useful, perhaps something like the pseudo code:

Seekable <- R6Interface("Seekable", 
  public = list( 
     Seek = function(position){} 
  )
)

RandomAccessFile <- R6Class("RandomAccessFile", 
  inherit = InputStream, 
  implements = list(Seekable), 
  ...
)

[gaborcsardi]

R being a dynamic language, we could also make this more of a convention instead of introducing another "keyword". E.g. just simply:

RandomAccessFile <- R6Class("RandomAccessFile", 
  inherit = list(InputStream, Seekable),
  ...
)

and we would require that for each inherited method at most one is implemented, and the others are NULL, or a special NULL function.

It might be worth checking how other dynamic languages are doing this.

[gaborcsardi]

The Python way seems too difficult for me, and it is also apparently different in Python 2 and 3.

[romainfrancois]

IIRC the issue with having them all in inherit was with super$

but yeah I guess the convention could be that super$ means the first and then the other are accessed with something different, e.g. self$interfaces$Seekable$Seek() or something.

[gaborcsardi]

That's why we would allow only one implementation. This is the one that will be called via super. The other instances of the same method (from other parent classes) must be NULL.

But maybe the implements keyword is better, it is surely more explicit.

[gaborcsardi]

But then with implements we need to take care about inheriting interfaces, etc.

[gaborcsardi]

But then if we have new syntax, we might as well do the original suggestion in #9. Maybe.

[berndbischl]

+1 for the suggestion to have interfaces in R6. it is the feature i am missing the most currently, to ensure good design in my class systems

[berndbischl]

i actually nearly started writing something simple here myself

[chrisknoll]

I'd like to echo support for implementing (no pun intended) some sort of interface mechanism. I think the Java (and probably others) thought through he issues of multiple-inheritance when they landed on 'single inheritance, multiple interfaces'....

So, the idea of introducing the notion of an 'interface declaration' (separate from R6Class, it would be something like R6Interface), and allow the R6Class() to specify an 'implements' list that specifies a set of R6Interface types that will be checked for implementation after the class is defined. Then super$ always knows it's referencing the single inherited type, while the implements specification can specify multiple interfaces that will result in a validation check on the class definition that has the proper methods defined (which also will find implemented methods in the inheritance hierarchy).

This would be really wonderful to introduce, and would really be worth any additional size to the library to support it. This isn't sugar syntax, this is a real gap in functionality.

[schrnstn]

Dear all, in particular @wch @gaborcsardi,

thank you for your outstanding work on the R6 library. It really helps us structure our R libraries for cross-functional teams.

Is someone intending to work or already working on the inheritance feature mentioned above? It would really lift the R6 class system to a new level.

I can only upvote the requirements and reasoning stated by @chrisknoll + interface inheritance mentioned by @gaborcsardi .

If of interest, I would be available to work on the feature (once we clarified all requirements) under potential guidance of one of the core maintainers. However, I am hesitating from starting without proper alignment, since a similar approach in #82 was turned down couple of years ago.